Rule of law often ignored

  • Follow Letters

Many people, by deceit or ignorance, state that any child born in the United States is automatically a citizen of the United States. This was “birthright citizenship” in 17th-century England. The U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment places two requirements for citizenship: 1) born or naturalized in the United States; 2) subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

If the wife of a foreign diplomat who has diplomatic immunity gives birth in the United States, then the baby is not a citizen. We also can tell that a mother who enters the United States illegally is not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” I believe that the same is true for the unborn child, but suppose we do not know until the child is born. If the child ever commits a crime, then the child should be stripped of citizenship along with punishment for the crime. If the child shows allegiance to another country – by waving that flag – then the child should be stripped of citizenship.

Common sense fails many judges when they consider the words of the Constitution. In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Dred Scott v. Sandford that no black person of African descent could be a citizen of the United States. Congress corrected this horrendous decision with the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The peoples’ House is where such issues should be debated and settled.

The problem is that laws are not being enforced. We no longer have rule of law. We are ruled by bureaucrats and judges who ignore the law or refuse to enforce it.

Comments (4) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
grouse
1635
Points
grouse 05/14/13 - 08:10 am
0
1
Under Mr. Tatum's reasoning,
Unpublished

Under Mr. Tatum's reasoning, an illegal could commit a murder and not be held legally responsible, which is clearly not the case, therefore, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US and the state in which they reside.

Dixieman
14943
Points
Dixieman 05/14/13 - 09:07 am
1
0
Wrong

Author needs to go back and read the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and do a simple Internet search. For example: "Two Supreme Court precedents were set by the cases of Elk v. Wilkins and United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Elk v. Wilkins established that Native American tribes represented independent political powers with no allegiance to the United States, and that their peoples were under a special jurisdiction of the United States. Children born to these Native American tribes therefore did not automatically receive citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment if they voluntarily left their tribe. Indian tribes that paid taxes were exempt from this ruling; their peoples were already citizens by an earlier act of Congress, and all non-citizen Native Americans (called "Indians") were subsequently made citizens by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

"In Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court held that, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a man born within the United States to foreigners (in that case, Chinese citizens) who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United State and who were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power, was a citizen of the United States." From Wikipedia.

So parents illegally here who give birth in the US create a US citizen child. Do the research before writing letters like this.

dichotomy
32856
Points
dichotomy 05/14/13 - 09:53 am
2
0
Won't be the first time

Won't be the first time SCOTUS has made a bad ruling. I do not believe ANYONE who had input to writing the Constitution OR any of the Amendments intended for a baby to be a citizen just because mama jumps a fence or swims a river and drops it on U.S. soil.

The SCOTUS has been known to make rulings that are politically and/or "social justice" motivated and are not necessarily the intent of the Constitution. See Obamacare - FEE vs. TAX where a Chief Justice re-wrote an unconstitutional law in order to make it technically constitutional in order to make a political point.

Precedents HAVE been overturned and just because SCOTUS said it don't make it right. Illegally jumping a fence and dropping a baby does not make a citizen. It don't pass the smell test even if it is precedent. The fact that it IS precedent just proves that there is NO common sense in our judicial system even at the SCOTUS level.

Dixieman
14943
Points
Dixieman 05/14/13 - 03:00 pm
2
0
Yes, but

This is the law as it stands today, not what I think it ought to be. But I don't think these cases will ever be overturned because the text of the amendment reads, "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...." and Section 5 reads: "Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." And Congress has passed some legislation enforcing the Fourteenth. The cases follow the text closely
I personally think conferring citizenship on a kid born on US soil whose parent or parents are here illegally at the time of birth is really stupid. Most countries don't provide for this but confer citizenship on kids ONLY stemming from the nationality of their parents (jus sanguinis), not their place of birth (jus solis). But I think we need a Constitutional amendment to amend Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment in order to change that result in the US.

sconservative
61
Points
sconservative 05/18/13 - 10:21 am
0
0
Repeal 14th Amendment

Rather than amending the 14th, why not repeal it? It served its historical purpose of punishing the slave owners and making slaves and their children citizens. Activist justices have caused much injustice by finding anchor babies, legalizing abortion and gutting the 10th amendment with Federal court review of state actions.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Former commissioner's case remains under review

While former Augusta commissioner Donnie Smith's statements to Georgia State Patrol investigators likely can't be used against him, the state Office of the Inspector General continues to conduct ...
Search Augusta jobs